Teresa Bloodman v. Dr. Tom Kimbrell, No. 14-2084 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Bowman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - School law. Challenges to discovery rulings rejected; district court's dismissal order affirmed, but modified to be without prejudice.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-2084 ___________________________ Teresa Lynette Bloodman, Parent and Natural Guardian of John Doe, a Minor Child lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Dr. Tom Kimbrell, Arkansas Department of Education, Individually Named and Official Capacity lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant Dr. Jerry Guess, Superintendent, Pulaski County Special School District, Individually Named and Official Capacity; Dr. Tameka Brown, Principal, Maumelle High School, Individually Named and Official Capacity; Michael Shook, Coach, Maumelle High School, Individually Named and Official Capacity; Grover Garrison, Coach, Maumelle High School, Individually Named and Official Capacity; Sherman Cox, Athletic Director, Maumelle High School, Individually Named and Official Capacity lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: May 13, 2015 Filed: May 21, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Teresa Bloodman brought this civil rights action for declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of her minor son, who at the time was an Arkansas public school student enrolled in Maumelle High School in the Pulaski County Special School District. Following an earlier remand by this Court, the District Court1—after learning that Bloodman’s son had transferred to another school district—stayed discovery and dismissed as moot the remaining claim, with prejudice. Bloodman appeals. After careful consideration of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the District Court’s discovery rulings were not an abuse of discretion. See Roberts v. Shawnee Mission Ford, Inc., 352 F.3d 358, 360 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review). Further, dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was proper. See Doe v. Nixon, 716 F.3d 1041, 1051 (8th Cir. 2013) (reviewing de novo the district court’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because of mootness). We also conclude, however, that the remaining claim should have been dismissed without prejudice. See County of Mille Lacs v. Benjamin, 361 F.3d 460, 464 (8th Cir. 2004) (“A district court is generally barred from dismissing a case with prejudice if it concludes subject matter jurisdiction is absent.”). Accordingly, we modify the judgment to be without prejudice, and we affirm the judgment as modified. We also deny the pending motion. 1 The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
